DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendments, new prior art rejections have been set forth directed to the newly added claims. These new rejections were necessitated by these amendments.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-11, 14-20, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO Publication Number 2020/085487 (WO ‘487).
In regard to independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-10, 14-15, 19, 20, and 23-27, WO ‘487 is directed to an aluminum alloy brazing sheet for brazing an aluminum material in an inert atmosphere or in a vacuum without using a flux. (Lines 13-14)
The aluminum alloy brazing sheet is a two-layer material in which a brazing material/core material is laminated in this order. (Lines 60-62) The core material is 0.5 to 2.0% manganese, 0.4 to 2.0% magnesium, 1.5% or less silicon, 1.0% or less iron, up to 0.3% titanium, and the balance of aluminum. (Lines 63-66) The core material may also contain 1.2% or less of copper. (Lines 97-99) The brazing material is 4.0 to 13.0% silicon and the balance of aluminum. (Lines 63-66) These compositional ranges overlap the claimed ranges or are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. (See MPEP 2144.05,I) Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The material can be etched with a weak acid. (Lines 736-739)
The invention further provides at least hot working, cold working, and cold working in a laminate, in this order. (Lines 175-176) A method for producing the product includes obtaining an aluminum alloy brazing sheet by performing one or more intermediate annealing between rolling passes and a final annealing after a final cold working pass. (Lines 175-179) The intermediate annealing time kept at 300 C or higher is 3 hours or longer, the time kept at 340 C or higher is 1 hour or longer, and the cooling rate is 300 C/hour or less. (Lines 206-209)
In cold working, intermediate annealing is performed once or twice or more between cold rolling passes. (Lines 670) The temperature of the intermediate annealing is 200 to 500 C, preferably 250 to 400 C. (Lines 670-671) In the intermediate annealing, the temperature can be raised to the intermediate annealing temperature and after reaching the intermediate annealing temperature, cooling may be started immediately, or after reaching the intermediate annealing temperature, after being held at the intermediate annealing temperature for a certain time, cooling may be started. (Lines 671-675) The holding time at the intermediate annealing temperature is 0 to 10 hours, preferably 1 to 5 hours. (Lines 675-676) This reference sets forth an annealing at 400 C for a time of 3 hours. (720-721) These conditions appear to meet the diffusion area D expressed by Formula (I) as set forth in the instant claims.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the Office can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, Bolton and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Since the prior art sets forth conditions that meet the method of Claim 10, which is directed to a method of producing the claimed product of claim 8, it would be expected that the resulting product of the prior art would meet the claimed property limitations. Consequently, absent a showing to the contrary, it appears that the product in the prior art necessarily or inherently possesses the characteristics of the claimed product.
As to claim 11, the clad ratio of the brazing material is usually about 5 to 30%. (Lines 506-510) The thickness of the plate can be 0.5 mm. (Line 720) The thickness of the brazing-material would overlap the claimed range.
As to claims 16-18, the brazing material may further comprise 2.00 mass % or less of magnesium. (Lines 71-75) Since magnesium is not required it would also include a zero value. This overlaps the claimed ranges. Likewise,
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts it is incorrect to determine that the range of “Mg at 0.10 to less than 0.40 mass %” is so close to “0.4 to 2.0%” that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Applicant asserts that WO ‘487 does not disclose or suggest the significance of the present invention. Applicant presents arguments as to the effects of the magnesium. Applicant also presented arguments directed to the diffusion area D.
These arguments are not found to be persuasive.
As set forth above and in the previous Office Action, the amount of magnesium within the brazing material is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. The difference between these ranges is infinitesimally small. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that due to this infinitesimally small difference that the products would have the same properties.
Further, as set forth above and in the previous Office Action, the prior art appears to set forth a process that is identical or substantially identical to those set forth in the instant application for producing the claimed product. Applicant even acknowledged in their response that the prior art may set forth particular heating conditions that the diffusion area D may become equal to or less than the threshold value. Applicant then concludes that D may also exceed the threshold. The rejections are based on an obviousness rejection. Thus, even by Applicant’s own arguments, the process of the prior art includes values that would values that correspond to the claimed process and one that was utilized to produce the claimed product.
Therefore, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant asserts that WO ‘487 treats Mg in the brazing material as an optional additive element and permits it to be as high as 2.00 mass %. Applicant also asserts that the prior art does not set forth controlling the Mg integration value.
As set forth above and in the previous Office Action, WO ‘487 sets forth a range of Mg that is so close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. Further, this reference sets forth the composition and a process of producing the product that within the overlap would be expected to produce the claimed features, including the Mg integration value.
Therefore, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A search of the prior art failed to turn up a single reference or an appropriate combination of multiple references that sets forth the claimed features and include the claimed amount of zinc within the core material as set forth in claims 12, 13, 21, and 22.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Schleis whose telephone number is (571)270-5636. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM to 4 PM Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Daniel J. Schleis
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/Daniel J. Schleis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights